Archive for Advocacy

What’s the Future for Physicians without Net Neutrality?

What’s the Future for Physicians without Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality has changed the digital landscape for millions of Americans, specifically physicians and health care professionals, but that could all change on June 11. In December, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal the net neutrality rules set in place by the Obama Administration, and on June 11 the repeal of net neutrality is set to take effect. Many professionals are unaware of the positive impact net neutrality has had in areas of the health care profession, such as telemedicine and technology education since it passed in 2015. Despite these technological advancements, many doctors still do not understand net neutrality, or the potential effect the repeal will have on their practice.

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality is the concept that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Verizon, Comcast and Spectrum are required to handle all data equally. Meaning ISPs cannot slow down some websites and speed up others. Net neutrality operates all websites loading at equal speeds and treats all content online fairly. Also, it protects the consumer from paying more money for slower internet speeds. Net neutrality keeps everyone on a level playing field with everyone having the same rights to the equally fast internet, and all websites are available at the same speed and quality.

Life without net neutrality

Without net neutrality, non-profit and educational websites and databases run the risk of being de-prioritized for commercial websites, meaning the importance of educational materials and research is left up to the internet service providers. Allowing ISPs the ability to decide the importance of internet content leaves the potential for the medical and academic community to suffer. Additionally, we can expect slower internet speeds affecting the ability to live-stream, upload and download promptly. Overall, a divide will be created between those who can afford faster internet service and those who are stuck with the slower bandwidth.

What does this mean for physicians? 

For physicians and health care professionals, the repeal of net neutrality could be detrimental. First, professionals run the risk of paying significantly more for high-speed internet capable of downloading, uploading, sending and receiving digital medical records. Also, all the advancements made in telemedicine recently could become stagnant. Despite the recent advancements, the future of telemedicine remains uncertain because even if the doctor can afford the high-speed internet to treat patients, many patients may not be able to afford the high-speed internet capable of live-streaming with their doctor.

Likewise, the education of doctors will be impacted significantly. For medical students, there is potential for an increase in tuition since it will cost more for high-speed internet capable of downloading and uploading medical books and research vital to their education. For doctors, it will become harder to stay up-to-date on the most recent research and studies in their field. Educational and non-profit websites will be overshadowed by commercial websites paying ISPs, making it harder to access scholarly research. Finally, the competition created between commercial websites and educational and non-profit websites will hinder and slow-down research. Overall, net neutrality has created a level playing field on the World Wide Web. It has made possible technological advancements that empower physicians with the education and tools they need to best care for their patients.

How can you make a difference?

On Wednesday, May 17, 2018, the Senate voted to reinstate the net neutrality rules repealed in December. The legislation is currently in the House where it is given little hope of advancing. Contact your district’s representative and express your concerns over the end of net neutrality and the effects it will have on physicians and healthcare professionals.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

What If No One Was On Call [at the Legislature]?

What If No One Was On Call [at the Legislature]?

2018 Recap of the Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature

In times of illness, injury and emergency, patients depend on their physicians. But what if no one was on call? Public health would be in jeopardy.  However, the same holds true for the Legislature. During the 2018 session alone, if the Medical Association had not been on call advocating for you and your patients, unnecessary and costly standards of care would have been written into law, lawsuit opportunities against physicians would have increased and poorly thought out “solutions” to the drug abuse epidemic ─ that could’ve made the problem worse ─ would have become law. Keep reading to find out more.

Moving Medicine Forward

The 2018 Legislative Session is over, but continued success in the legislative arena takes constant vigilance. Click here to download our 2018 Agenda.

If no one was on call…increased state funding for upgrading the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) would not have occurred. Working with the Governor’s Opioid Task Force, the Medical Association proposed increased funding for the PDMP, to allow it to be an effective tool for physicians. As a result, the Task Force made the request its number one recommendation to the Governor and the 2019 budget for the Alabama Department of Public Health (the PDMP administrator) has a $1 million increase for making a long-overdue upgrade to the user-friendliness of the drug database.

If no one was on call…legislation helping veterans at-risk for drug abuse get the care they need and also leverage technology to combat the drug abuse epidemic would not have occurred. Through enactment of SB 200, the prescription information of VA patients will be shared between the VA and non-VA physicians and pharmacists who are outside the VA system, the same kind of information sharing of prescription data that exists for almost all other patients. Passage of SB 200 also establishes a mechanism for vetting requests for release of completely de-identified PDMP information that can be used to spot drug abuse trends and help state officials better allocate resources in combatting this epidemic. The proposals that resulted in the drafting of SB 200 originated with a recommendation from the Governor’s Opioid Task Force, one the Medical Association supported.

If no one was on call…the concerns of physicians regarding the current state of affairs surrounding the Maintenance of Certification program would not have been heard. A formal recommendation from the Medical Association’s MOC Study Committee resulted in the enactment of SJR 62 by Senators Tim Melson, M.D., Larry Stutts, M.D., and the entire Alabama Senate. The resolution was signed by Gov. Kay Ivey. SJR 62 vocalizes Alabama physicians’ frustrations with MOC and urges the American Board of Medical Specialties to honor its commitment to help reduce the burden and cost of MOC. Pursuit of a legislative resolution was just one of several recommendations from the Association’s MOC Study Committee this year.

If no one was on call…the Board of Medical Scholarship Awards could have seen its funding reduced but instead, the program retained its funding level of $1.4 million for 2019. The BMSA grants medical school loans to medical students and accepts as payment for the loan that student’s locating to a rural area to practice medicine. The BMSA is a critical tool for recruiting medical students to commit to practice in rural areas. As well, the economic footprint of every physician is at least $1 million, which improves both community health and local economies.

If no one was on call…Medicaid cuts could have been severe, possibly reducing access for patients within an already fragile system in which less than 20 percent of Alabama physicians participate. The 2019 budget has sufficient funds available for Medicaid without scheduled cuts to physicians. However, increasing Medicaid reimbursements to Medicare levels could further increase access to care for Medicaid patients and remains a Medical Association priority.

Beating Back the Lawsuit Industry

While Alabama’s medical liability laws have fostered fairness in the courtroom and improved the legal climate, each year personal injury attorneys seek to undo parts of the very law that helps keep “jackpot justice” and frivolous suits in check.

If no one was on call…bill language that could have pulled physicians into new lawsuits targeting opioid drug makers and opioid wholesale drug distributors could have been included in the final version of the legislation, whose subject matter was originally limited to placing new criminal penalties on unlawful possession, distribution and trafficking of Fentanyl. After the liability language was added on the House floor, a committee of the House and Senate removed the new cause of action language that could have affected physicians. Additionally, an unsuccessful attempt was made to amend this same bill to give law enforcement the authority to determine what is the unlawful “prescribing” or “dispensing” of prescription drugs. The final bill that passed contained neither of these elements that would have been problematic for physicians.

If no one was on call…physicians and medical practices could have been forced to provide warranty and replacement coverage for “assistive medical devices.” As originally drafted in the bill, the term “assistive medical devices” was broadly defined to include any device that improves a person’s quality of life including those implanted, sold or furnished by physicians and medical practices like joint or cochlear implants, pacemakers, hearing aids, etc. However, the Medical Association successfully sought an amendment to remove physicians, their staff and medical practices from having any new warranty or assistive device replacement responsibility under the act, and the final version doesn’t expand liability on doctors.

If no one was on call…legislation granting nurse practitioners and nurse midwives new signature authority outside of a collaborative practice and for some items prohibited under federal law – thereby significantly expanding liability for collaborating physicians – could have become law. The Medical Association successfully sought to ensure that all new signature authority granted to CRNPs and CNMs was subject to an active collaborative agreement and all additional forms or authorizations granted were consistent with federal law, protecting collaborating physicians from new liability exposure. The final bill was favorably amended with this language.

If no one was on call…physicians could have been held legally responsible for others’ mistakes including individuals following or failing to follow DNR orders on minors. The language of the final bill does not expand liability for physicians.

Protecting Public Health and Access to Quality Care

Every session, various pieces of legislation aimed at improving the health of Alabamians are proposed. At the same time however, many bills are also introduced that endanger public health and safety, like those where the Legislature attempts to set standards for medical care, which force physicians and their staffs to adhere to non-medically established criteria, wasting health care dollars, wasting patients’ and physicians’ time and exposing physicians to new liability concerns.

If no one was on callcollaborative practice in Alabama between nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and physicians could have been abolished. The legislation did not pass. Read the joint statement on the bill from the Medical Association and allied medical specialties here. The bill may return next session.

If no one was on call…legislation to give law enforcement the authority to determine what is the unlawful “prescribing” or “dispensing” of controlled substances (and making violations a Class B Felony) could have become law. The Medical Association sought changes to the bill to require prosecutors to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a physician knowingly or intentionally prescribed controlled substances for other than a legitimate medical purpose and outside the usual course of his or her professional practice, and also to ensure sufficient qualifications for expert witnesses. The sponsor however – arguing that expert witness testimony for prosecuting a physician should not be required – asked the bill not be passed and instead “indefinitely postponed it,” killing the bill for the 2018 session. The bill will return next session.

If no one was on callmarriage and family therapists could have been allowed unprecedented authority to diagnose and treat mental illnesses without restriction. The legislation would also have deleted numerous prohibitions in current law including prescribing drugs, using electroconvulsive therapy, admitting to a hospital and treating inpatients without medical supervision, among other things. The Medical Association offered a substitute bill that (1) ensures all diagnoses and treatment plans made by MFTs are within the MFT treatment context; (2) ensures MFTs cannot practice outside the boundaries of MFT services; (3) prohibits MFTs from practicing medicine; and, (4) ensures all the current prohibitions in state law regarding prescribing of drugs, electroconvulsive therapy and inpatient treatment remain intact. The final bill that is now law contains all of these elements.

If no one was on call…legislation creating a new state board with unprecedented authority over medical imaging could have passed. The legislation would have required x-ray operators, magnetic resonance technologists, nuclear medicine technologists, radiation therapists, radiographers and radiologist assistants to acquire a new license from a new state board, a board granted total control over the scope of practice for each licensee. Quality and access to care concerns abounded with this legislation that many saw as unnecessary. The legislation did not pass, but is likely to return next session.

If no one was on call…proposals to move the PDMP away from the Alabama Department of Public Health and instead under the authority of some other state agency or even to a private non-profit organization could have been successful. In working with the Governor’s Opioid Task Force, the Medical Association stressed the Health Department was the proper home for the PDMP and the Task Force did not recommend that the PDMP be moved elsewhere.

If no one was on call…legislation to place new requirements on and increase civil liability exposure on referring physicians under the Women’s Right to Know Act could have become law. The legislation aimed to provide a woman seeking an abortion with notice that she can change her mind at any time and be entitled to a full refund for not going through with the abortion. The Medical Association sought to fix a longstanding problem that places information-provision requirements on referring physicians under the Women’s Right to Know law. While the Association’s language was adopted, the bill failed to pass. The bill is expected to return next session.

If no one was on call…state law could have been changed to require mandatory PDMP checks on every prescription. Attempts to change this are expected in 2019.

If no one was on call…law enforcement could have been granted unfettered access to the prescriptions records of all Alabamians. Attempts to change this are expected in 2019.

Other Bills of Interest

Rural physician tax credits…legislation to increase rural physician tax credits and thereby increase access to care for rural Alabamians did not pass but will be reintroduced next session.

Infectious Disease Elimination…legislation to establish infectious disease elimination pilot programs to mitigate the spread of certain diseases failed to garner enough support to pass this session.

Data breach notification…relating to consumer protection, is known as the “data breach bill.” In the event of a data breach by a HIPAA-covered entity, as long as the entity follows HIPAA guidelines for data breaches and notifies the attorney general if the breach affects more than 1,000 people, the HIPAA-covered entity is exempt from any penalties. Now, only North Dakota lacks a “data breach” notification statute. The bill was signed by the Governor.

School-based vaccine program…a Senate Joint Resolution urging the State Department of Education and the Alabama Department of Public Health to encourage all schools to participate in a school-based vaccine program passed in 2018. The Medical Association, Alabama Academy of Pediatrics and Alabama Academy of Family Physicians issued a joint statement in opposition to the resolution.

While we remain committed to increasing vaccine rates in Alabama for the very reasons outlined in the “Whereases” of the resolution, we are very concerned about the potential disruption that a widespread school-based program could bring to local practices and the likelihood of detrimental effects of adolescents not visiting the doctor-their medical home–during the critical teen years,” the joint statement from the medical societies reads.

While Gov. Ivey did not sign the resolution, it was ratified under state law without her signature.

Workers comp…legislation to penalize an individual from obtaining workers comp benefits by fraudulent means was introduced this session. The Medical Association successfully sought an amendment to require notice to the physician of termination of a worker’s benefits and to ensure continued payment of claims submitted by a physician until that notice is received. The bill failed to see any action this session.

Genital mutilation…legislation criminalizing the genital mutilation of a minor female was introduced this session. The Medical Association successfully sought an amendment to exclude emergency situations and procedures. The bill died in the Senate during the last days of the session. It is expected to return next year.

If the Medical Association was not on call at the Legislature, countless bills expanding doctors’ liability, placing standards of care into state law, lowering the quality of care provided and diminishing the practice of medicine could have passed. At the same time, positive strides in public health – like new funding for a much-needed PDMP upgrade, better data-sharing with VA facilities and the resolution on MOC – would not have occurred. The Medical Association is Alabama physicians’ greatest resource in advocating for the practice of medicine and the patients they serve.

Questions? For more information contact Niko Corley at ncorley@alamedical.org

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

MOC UPDATE: Working to Solve Problems with Certifications

MOC UPDATE: Working to Solve Problems with Certifications

UPDATE DEC. 12, 2018:  The Continuing Board Certification: Vision for the Future Commission has released its draft report for public comment. The report, which includes the Commission’s key findings and recommendations, will be posted on the Vision Initiative website for comment through Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019 at 11:00 p.m. CST.

The Medical Association continues to work with the American Board of Medical Specialties concerning physician frustrations with the current Maintenance of Certification process, but this is your opportunity to voice your opinion as well. Take a moment, review the draft report, and offer your comments by Jan. 15.

The Medical Association remains committed to working with the American Board of Medical Specialties and its 24 Member Boards to improve the continuing certification process so that it becomes a system that demonstrates the profession’s commitment to professional self-regulation, offers a consistent and clear understanding of what continuing certification means, and establishes a meaningful, relevant and valuable program that meets the highest standard of quality patient care. The Boards will seriously consider the Commission’s findings and recommendations once finalized, as they continue implementation of improvements and pilots currently underway.


UPDATE JULY 20, 2018: The Continuing Board Certification: Vision for the Future or “Vision Initiative” is a collaborative effort that brings together multiple stakeholders to envision a system that is responsive to the needs of those who rely on it and that is relevant, meaningful and of value to physicians. The Vision Initiative includes physicians, professional medical organizations, national specialty and state medical societies, hospitals and health systems, the general public and patients, and the 24 Member Boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties.

The Vision Initiative held in-person meetings in March and May to solicit testimony from ABMS member boards, national specialty and state medical societies, key stakeholders, and the public regarding their perspectives on the continuous certification system as well as innovations and possible changes.

Here is a summary of the March and May meetings for your information.

Upcoming meetings, to be held August 29-30 and October 15-16 will discuss solutions in relation to MOC. (See timeline.) A draft report for public comment is anticipated in November 2018, with a final report from the Commission to ABMS due February 2019.

Interested medical societies can sign up for monthly updates to follow the Commission’s progress and be notified about opportunities for feedback and input at this link.

RELATED NEWS: MOC UPDATE: Two Certification Programs Transition from Pilot to Permanent


UPDATE APRIL 20, 2018:  The Continuing Board Certification: Vision for the Future Commission is continuing its quest  to bring together physicians, medical organization, state medical societies, hospitals, health systems, patients and the ABMS to investigate the future of board certification and recently hosted its first in-person meeting in March in Washington, D.C. Commission members heard testimony on continuing certification from stakeholders who provided their perspectives and experiences with continuing certification, the challenges they currently face, and their thoughts about opportunities about the future. The presentation components of the meeting were open to the public and video streamed for all to view live.

HOW  CAN YOU PARTICIPATE? The Commission launched a stakeholder survey in February, which will remain open until May 11. Complete the survey, share the link with your colleagues, and urge them to participate as well. TAKE THE SURVEY

The next Commission meeting will be held May 30 – June 1. The meeting will feature sections open to the public and will be live video streamed. Details regarding the agenda and live streaming will be featured in next month’s update and posted on visioninitiative.org. Please make sure to bookmark the site for access to Commission meeting information, progress updates, and opportunities for your feedback and input, and remember to share this update with your colleagues and encourage them to become involved in the process as well.


The Medical Association continues to work with the American Board of Medical Specialties concerning physician frustrations with the current Maintenance of Certification process. Late last year, Association Executive Director Mark Jackson and Council on Medical Service member Jeff Rickert, M.D., joined representatives from other state medical societies and individual specialty boards for a meeting with the ABMS in Chicago, which included discussions about innovations the medical boards are working on to address continuous learning for physicians, many of which include input from various outside stakeholders and focus on greater consistency amongst the medical boards.

Following the Association’s Annual Governmental Affairs Meeting in Washington in February where Richard Hawkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of ABMS, was a guest speaker, the organization issued a statement as an update on the progress of issues of concern to physicians about Maintenance of Certification.

As a result of these meetings, and other meetings initiated by State Medical Societies, the Continuing Board Certification: Vision for the Future was formed as a collaborative effort bringing together physicians, medical organization, state medical societies, hospitals, health systems, patients and the ABMS to investigate the future of board certification.

The Commission invites input from all stakeholders. To participate in the discussion, you may provide comments to inform the future of board certification, learn how you can engage in the process, and sign up for monthly email updates from the Commission. LEARN MORE

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

STUDY: Independent Practice Declines Due Partially to EHRs

STUDY: Independent Practice Declines Due Partially to EHRs

A new study conducted by the Trump Administration suggests electronic health records are currently failing at reducing the cost of billing for medical facilities, especially for independent practices.

“Small physicians’ groups and solo providers could not afford to purchase and maintain electronic medical records and comply with government reporting requirements,” the White House report stated. “As a result, hospital mergers are booming, leading to horizontal integration, and large hospitals are buying up physicians’ practices and outpatient service providers to form large, vertically integrated health care networks.”

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that billing costs consumed significant chunks of revenue even at a large academic center with a fully implemented EHR system. They represented about 14.5 percent of costs of primary care visits and 13.4 percent of costs for ambulatory surgical procedures. “These findings suggest that significant investments in certified health information technology have not reduced high billing costs in the United States,” the authors state in the report.

Independent physicians have also commented on the burdens of the EHR system. Three out of four physicians believe electronic health records (EHRs) increase practice costs, outweighing any efficiency savings, and seven out of 10 think EHRs reduce their productivity, according to a Deloitte’s recent 2016 Survey of U.S. Physicians.

The results of the survey also indicate physician satisfaction with EHRs varies by practice characteristics. About 70 percent of employed physicians are more likely to think that EHRs support the exchange of clinical information and help improve clinical outcomes compared to 50 percent of independent physicians. The results also revealed 72 percent of independent physicians are more likely to think that EHRs reduce productivity compared to 57 percent of employed physicians. Additionally, 80 percent of independent physicians think that EHRs increase practice costs, compared to 63 percent of employed physicians.

The federal government has financial interests in making it easier for physicians to cope with EHR requirements, according to President Trump’s 2018 Economic Report. As part of its 2018 economic report, released Feb. 21, the White House drew a direct connection between physicians’ struggles to purchase and operate EHR systems and the increase in consolidation among hospitals.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Bipartisan Budget Act Boosts Health Programs

Bipartisan Budget Act Boosts Health Programs

In a rare show of bipartisanship for the mostly polarized 115th Congress, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 is officially one for the record books. The week leading up to the final vote was far from smooth with Sen. Nancy Pelosi impressively filibustering on the floor of the U.S. Senate for eight hours to Rep. Rand Paul blocking the final vote late Thursday night/early Friday morning and forcing a six-hour government shutdown before allowing the final vote to be taken.

Now that President Trump has signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 here’s what you need to know:

Technical Amendments to MACRA. Makes several changes to the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) that the medical community has been strongly advocating for, including:

  • Excludes Medicare Part B drug costs from MIPS payment adjustments and from the low-volume threshold determination;
  • Eliminates improvement scoring for the cost performance category for the third, fourth and fifth years of MIPS;
  • Allows CMS to reweight the cost performance category to not less than 10 percent for the third, fourth, and fifth years of MIPS;
  • Requires CMS to update on CMS’ website by Dec. 31 of each year, information on resource use measures including measures under development, the time-frame for such development, potential future resource use measure topics, a description of stakeholder engagement and the percent of expenditures under Medicare Part A and B that are covered by resource use measures.
  • Allows CMS flexibility in setting the performance threshold for years three through five to ensure a gradual and incremental transition to the performance threshold set at the mean or median for the sixth year;
  • Allows the Physician Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) to provide initial feedback regarding the extent to which models meet criteria and an explanation of the basis for the feedback.

Physician fee schedule update (in lieu of Misvalued Codes). Reduces the Physician Fee Schedule conversion factor for 2019 from 0.5 percent to 0.25 percent. This is more favorable language than, and is in lieu of, the language in the House bill that would extend the “misvalued codes” provision for one additional year. The AMA estimated, based on the recommendations of the AMA / Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), that the misvalued code provision in the House bill would have reduced the statutory 0.5 percent payment update in 2019 by 0.45 percent. Rejection of the misvalued code policy is an important outcome for future budget saving exercises. On a bipartisan basis, policymakers have recognized that the misvalued code “budget dial” is tapped out and should be shelved.

IPAB. Permanently repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB was a 15-member government agency created in 2010 by the Affordable Care Act for achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.

Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP is extended for an additional four years beyond the previous Continuing Resolution’s six-year extension, with appropriations made through 2027.

Community Health Centers. Funding for community health centers is reauthorized for two years at a level of $3.8 billion for FY 2018 and $4 billion for FY 2019.

Medicare payment cap for therapy services. Permanently repeals the outpatient therapy caps beginning on Jan. 1, 2018.

National Health Service Corps. Funding for the National Health Service Corps is extended at the FY 2015 – 2017 annual level of $310 million for two additional years.

Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education. Funding for Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education is extended for two years at an annual level of $126.5 million, more than doubling annual funding for this program.

Geographic Practice Cost Indices (GPCI) floor. Extends the work GPCI floor for two additional years through Jan. 1, 2020.

Reducing EHR Significant Hardship. Removes the current mandate that meaningful use standards become more stringent over time. This eases the burden on physicians as they would no longer have to submit and receive a hardship exception from HHS.

Closing the Donut Hole for Seniors. Closes the Medicare Part D prescription drug “donut hole” sooner than under current law by increasing the discounted price manufacturers provide from 50 percent to 70 percent.

Emergency Medicaid Funds for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico’s Medicaid caps for 2018 – 2019 are increased by an additional $4.8 billion. The Virgin Islands’ caps are increased over the same time period by $142.5 million. Also, 100 percent federal cost sharing for Medicaid is provided for both territories through Sept. 30, 2019.

Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF). The Senate bill reduces funding for the PPHF by $1.35 billion between FY 2018 – 2027.

Other Select Budget Agreement Provisions:

Note: there is an agreement to include these funds in the Omnibus before the March 23 deadline.

  • $6 billion in funding for the opioid crisis and for mental health
  • $4 billion to rebuild and improve VA Hospitals and clinics
  • $2 billion for NIH research (above CURES Act increases)

Click here if you would like to see how Alabama’s Congressional Delegation voted.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Physician Groups Issue Joint Statement in Support of Raising Alabama’s Legal Tobacco Age to 21

Physician Groups Issue Joint Statement in Support of Raising Alabama’s Legal Tobacco Age to 21

DOWNLOAD THE MEDIA RELEASE

MONTGOMERY — The Medical Association of the State of Alabama, the Alabama Chapter-American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Cardiology-Alabama Chapter, the Alabama Dermatology Society, and the Alabama Academy of Family Physicians have joined in support of legislation that would raise Alabama’s legal tobacco age from 19 to 21.

“Research has shown our children are at the greatest risk of becoming smokers because they begin to experiment with cigarettes around the age of 18,” said Medical Association President Jerry Harrison, M.D. “Smoking remains one of the most preventable causes of heart disease by making the heart work harder and raising the blood pressure, which can trigger a stroke. So, raising Alabama’s legal tobacco age limit by a couple of years in order to add years to our children’s lives only makes sense.”

A study published last year in the journal Pediatrics showed raising the minimum tobacco purchase age to 21 would likely have significant public health benefits, including 249,000 fewer premature deaths and 45,000 fewer lung cancer deaths for those born between 2010 and 2019. The study also showed that younger adolescents were more likely to support the initiative, and past research has shown that up to 75 percent of adults favor the higher purchase age for tobacco products.

“This legislation is one of the most effective actions Alabama can make to ensure the health and safety of our children,” said Susan Walley, M.D., FAAP, member of the AL-AAP Executive Board and the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Tobacco Control. “Any tobacco use in children and adolescents is not safe. Adolescents are more likely to become addicted to nicotine, even with experimental use, which has a ‘gateway effect’ to other substances of abuse. Once adolescents start using tobacco products, whether from electronic cigarettes or traditional combustible cigarettes or cigars, they risk a lifelong habit that kills one-in-three smokers from a multitude of diseases.”

According to the Alabama Dermatology Society, smoking is bad for the skin in multiple ways – ill effects that can begin in the teenage years. In addition to causing premature skin aging and wrinkles, smoking nearly doubles one’s risk of developing psoriasis. Even more worrisome, studies show smokers boost their risk for developing squamous cell carcinoma of the skin by 52 percent. Squamous cell carcinoma is the second most common form of skin cancer, and, while often treatable, can have deadly consequences.

A bill sponsored by Rep. Chris Pringle (R-Mobile) – HB 47 – would raise the age from 19 to 21 for anyone in Alabama looking to purchase, use, or possess tobacco products in Alabama. This proposed legislation includes any tobacco, tobacco product or alternative nicotine product. Our organizations fully support the passage of this legislation for the lives of Alabama’s children.

For more information or comment, please contact:

Lori M. Quiller, APR, Medical Association of the State of Alabama, (334) 954-2580

Linda Lee, APR, Alabama Chapter-American Academy of Pediatrics, (334) 954-2543

Christina Smith, American College of Cardiology-Alabama Chapter, and Alabama Dermatology Society, (205) 972-8510

Jeff Arrington, Alabama Academy of Family Physicians, (334) 954-2570

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

ABMS Issues Statement about MOC Update

ABMS Issues Statement about MOC Update

Following the Medical Association’s Annual Governmental Affairs Meeting in Washington earlier this week where Richard Hawkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Board of Medical Specialties, was a guest speaker, ABMS issued a statement as an update on the progress of issues of concern to physicians about Maintenance of Certification.

Late last year, frustrations with the current Maintenance of Certification process brought the Medical Association and representatives from other state medical societies and individual specialty boards to Chicago for a series of meetings with the American Board of Medical Specialties to discuss physician frustration with the MOC process. Leadership within ABMS and the specialty boards engaged in meaningful dialogue during the meeting with promises to address criticisms of the current MOC process.

As part of the ABMS statement, the organization vowed to continue to work closely with physician organizations to improve the certification process. The release included the following action statements:

  • To make testing more relevant to practice, Boards have modularized the exam in specific practice areas and given their diplomates more flexibility over the scope and frequency of assessment;
  • To eliminate the indirect costs of participation, Boards have modernized the assessment through convenient on-line testing or remote proctoring, eliminating the need for preparation courses, travel to exam centers, and time away from practices;
  • To simulate real-life application of knowledge and decision making, some Boards now permit the use of reference materials during the exam;
  • To assure that knowledge assessments help participating physicians to identify gaps in knowledge and guide their learning, assessments are accompanied by timely, actionable feedback;
  • To increase alignment between MOC and other quality and safety programs, a much wider variety of practice-based learning and improvement activities are now recognized, including those offered through hospitals, specialty societies, and state medical societies.
  • To assure opportunities for remediation of knowledge gaps, all Boards provide multiple opportunities for physicians to retake the exam.

Meanwhile, the entire Boards Community has:

  • Initiated a major redesign of ABMS governance to increase Board accountability and provide an ongoing opportunity for participating physicians to directly impact ABMS programs and policy;
  • Initiated the development of organizational standards to increase operational consistency, transparency and effectiveness across the Boards; and
  • Launched the Continuing Board Certification – Vision for the Future initiative to gather broad input about continuing certification from a wide range of stakeholders (especially physicians who spend most of their time in practice), consider alternatives, and make recommendations for the future.

Read the full statement here.

Read how the Medical Association has been working to ease MOC frustrations for our members.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Possible Government Shutdown with CHIP in the Balance?

Possible Government Shutdown with CHIP in the Balance?

Friday, Jan. 19: Government shutdowns are rare, with the last shutdown in 2013 that lasted 17 days. Even though the U.S. House passed legislation that would fund CHIP for six more years, the Senate may not approve the measure. In fact, Congress is facing the possibility of another government shutdown, which could leave health care for more than 9 million children caught in the middle of the fray.

Late Thursday evening the House passed legislation 230-197 to keep the government open for business through Feb. 16. The measure now faces a steep battle with Senate lawmakers as time ticks down to midnight to avoid a full shutdown. It’s been widely reported that conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus largely backed the measure even after being locked in debate with the White House and GOP leaders over concerns of military funding and immigration reform. The legislation also includes a measure to renew the Children’s Health Insurance Program for another six years.

Now with the legislation in the Senate it faces steep opposition by Democrats who appear intent on securing concessions that would, among other things, protect from deportation young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children, increase domestic spending, aid Puerto Rico and bolster the government’s response to the opioid epidemic. Senate Democrats have publicly decried the GOP does not have the votes necessary to pass the legislation.

According to the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, there are now 11 states in danger of running out of CHIP money by the end of February…a number that will double by the end of March. Complicating matters even more, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that extending CHIP funding for 10 years would save the federal government $6 billion whereas initial estimates were that renewing CHIP funding would cost $8.2 billion.

The CBO adjustment stems from changes Congress has made to the Affordable Care Act making private health insurance more expensive and an increase in federal spending on subsidies for that coverage makes CHIP a better deal in comparison.

A government shutdown means more to medicine than health care for America’s children. It will affect the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during one of the most dangerous flu seasons in recent history. The National Institutes of Health will be forced to stop enrolling patients in clinical trials. Drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration will come to a complete stop.

The Medical Association is closely monitoring legislation pertaining to CHIP funding and will report any changes as they occur.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Medical Association Works to Ease MOC Frustrations

Medical Association Works to Ease MOC Frustrations

Frustrations with the current Maintenance of Certification process brought together Medical Association Executive Director Mark Jackson and Council on Medical Service member Jeff Rickert, M.D., and representatives from other state medical societies and individual specialty boards for a series of meetings with the American Board of Medical Specialties.

The daylong meeting in Chicago was called at the request of state medical societies, including the Medical Association, who have expressed increasing frustration with the MOC process and have demanded changes be made. Leadership within ABMS and the specialty boards engaged in meaningful dialogue during the meeting with promises to address criticisms of the current MOC process.

Discussions included 170 innovations the medical boards are working on to address continuous learning for physicians, many of which include input from various outside stakeholders and focus on greater consistency amongst the medical boards. Innovations also include alternatives to the high-stakes exams with a focus on longitudinal learning for physicians in their relevant practice areas. Many medical boards outlined current (or moving to) learning modules that would be seamless for physicians and provide a gap analysis. Most medical boards seemed to be moving away from the high-stakes examination that has been the challenge of the physicians. There was also discussion by some of the medical boards on reducing the fees collected from physicians for the tests and the need to be more customer friendly.

The Medical Association’s Board of Censors created MOC study committee to fully examine the MOC issue and provide feedback to the Board. Dr. Rickert is a member of this committee and will provide input in the coming weeks as the committee discusses recommendations to the Board of Censors.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Medical Association’s 2018 State and Federal Agendas

Medical Association’s 2018 State and Federal Agendas

The Medical Association Board of Censors has met and approved the Association’s 2018 State and Federal Agendas. These agendas were developed with guidance from the House of Delegates and input from individual physicians. As the Alabama Legislature and U.S. Congress begin their work for 2018, additional items affecting physicians, medical practices and patients may be added to this list.

Download the Medical Association’s 2018 State and Federal Agendas (PDF)

 

2018 STATE AGENDA

 

The Medical Association supports:

  • Ensuring legislation “first do[es] no harm”
  • Extending the Medicaid payment bump for primary care to all specialties of medicine
  • Eliminating the health insurance-coverage gap for the working poor
  • Ensuring fair payment for patient care and reducing administrative burdens on physicians and medical practices
  • Strengthening existing tort reforms and ensuring liability system stability
  • Empowering patients and their doctors in making medical decisions
  • Continued physician compounding, dispensing of drugs
  • The same standards and reimbursements for telehealth and face-to-face visits
  • Training, education and licensing transparency of all individuals involved in patient care
  • Continued self-regulation of medicine over all areas of patient care
  • Increased state funding to upgrade the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program to a useful tool for physician monitoring patients at risk for drug interactions and overdose potential
  • Using data analytics to combat the drug abuse epidemic by strengthening research capabilities of pre-approved, de-identified prescription information
  • Maintaining the Alabama Department of Public Health as the repository for PDMP information to ensure continuity for prescribers and dispensers and security for patients
  • Standard opioid education in medical school so the physicians of tomorrow are prepared to face the realities and responsibilities of opioid prescribing

 

The Medical Association opposes:

  • The radical Patient Compensation System legislation
  • Legislation/initiatives increasing lawsuits against physicians
  • Non-physicians setting standards for medical care delivery
  • Tax increases disproportionately affecting physicians
  • Expanding access to the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) for law enforcement
  • Statutory requirements for mandatory PDMP checks
  • Further expansion of Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirements
  • Changes to workers’ compensation laws negatively affecting treatment of injured workers and medical practices
  • Any scope of practice expansions that endanger patients or reduces quality of care
  • Biologic substitution legislation that allows lower standards in Alabama than those set by the FDA that doesn’t provide immediate notifications to patients and their physicians when a biologic is substituted, and that increases administrative burdens on physicians and medical practices

 

2018 FEDERAL AGENDA

 

The Medical Association supports:

  • Meaningful tort reforms that maintain existing state protections
  • Reducing administrative and regulatory burdens on physicians and medical practices
  • Repeal of the Affordable Care Act and replacement with a system that:
    • Includes meaningful tort reforms that maintain existing state protections
    • Preserves employer-based health insurance
    • Protects coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions
    • Protects coverage for dependents under age 26
    • With proper oversight, allows the sale of health insurance across state lines
    • Allows for deducting individual health insurance expenses on tax returns
    • Increases allowed contributions to health savings accounts
    • Ensures access for vulnerable populations
    • Ensures universal, catastrophic coverage
    • Does not increase uncompensated care
    • Does not require adherence with insurance requirements until insurance reimbursement begins
    • Reduces administrative and regulatory burdens
  • Overhauling federal fraud and abuse programs
  • Reforming the RAC program
  • Prescription drug abuse education, prevention and treatment initiatives
  • Allowing patient private contracting in Medicare
  • Expanding veterans’ access to non-VA physicians
  • Reducing escalating prescription drug costs
  • A patient-centered MACRA framework, including non-punitive and flexible implementation of new MIPS, PQRS and MU requirements
  • Congressional reauthorization of CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) at the current enhanced funding level
  • Better interstate PDMP connectivity
  • Eliminating “pain” as the fifth vital sign
  • Repealing the “language interpreters” rule
  • Requiring all VA facilities, methadone clinics and suboxone clinics to input prescription data into state PDMPs where they are located

 

The Medical Association opposes:

  • Non-physicians setting standards for medical care delivery
  • Publication of Medicare physician payment data
  • National medical licensure that supersedes state licensure
  • Legislation/initiatives increasing lawsuits against physicians

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 12 of 16 «...1011121314...»